"Marriage" and "Civil Unions" - please consider reading at link enclosed

[Cerridwen]

I used the link below in another thread then got to thinking others might not be aware of the distinctions between the "civil unions" and "marriage." It's not just semantics. It's about access to benefits and it's about additional responsibilities.

Number of Legal Benefits:

* Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
* Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)

Tax Relief:

* Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
* Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Medical Decisions:

* Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
* Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

<snip to much more information at this link>

[stray cat]

1. Biden talked about being in favor of civil unions but equality under the law -

I assume that is different than what is currently in place for civil unions. Right?

[Cerridwen]

4. That sounds different than what's in place.

I'm not familiar with what Vice President-Elect Biden (I just had to type that out :D ) said specifically.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of what he said can reply with their understanding of it.

[LostinVA]

16. No, it's the same thing in some states (NJ) -- and, it's still separate but equal

[Oregone]

2. I think this is sort of a moot point

People in favor of federal Civil Union legislation (which doesn't exist) also favor it providing the EXACT same rights & benefits under the law. Only the civil, legal designation has a different name.

[peace13]

3. There are always ways to solve problems.

A uniform union would be much better in the long run. Marriage is associated with religion and religion and American government are not to mix. Let's get this right for once. Civil unions for all and then gussy it up with a marriage 'ceremony' if that is the desire.

[MH1]

6. Yes!

You have it exactly right.

:toast:

[Maven]

8. You really think it's about the semantics

when it comes to people trying to deny us rights?

It isn't about the word to them. It's about the *equality*. In case you didn't notice, the amendment in Florida that just passed barred ALL forms of recognition for our relationships, including civil unions and domestic partnerships.

What you're proposing is: a) a completely impractical and needless overhaul of the legal system, b) not likely to ever happen (see point a), and c) likely to cause even more backlash from those who accuse us of trying to destroy civil marriage completely.

I wish people would stop with the "civil unions for all" canard. It isn't helpful.

[shireen]

13. i think that #3 is saying that civil unions should be legally redefined

to encompass all legal rights of marriage, while the term "marriage" is used for religious and spiritual purposes only. I don't think he is trying to deny you any rights. Most of the objections to gay marriage are coming from religious people who object to it for religious reasons, whatever the hell that means.

So the question then becomes, is it easier to
A) "overhaul of the legal system" to make civil union laws identical to marriage laws?
B) change the minds of religious people?

Option (A) as you said is impractical and needless since perfectly good laws already exist in the legal definition of marriage.

Option (B) is like trying to squeeze water out of a stone because religious people who voted for prop 8 are either irrational, illogical, and/or zombies doing whatever the church tells them, incapable of critical and independent thinking. Oh, I supposed some can eventually be reasoned with, but there are just too many of them out there.

If I had to choose a path of least resistance, I'd take my chances with option (A), and hope that the option (B) people get thinned out over a few generations via natural selection.

[peace13]

40. You understood me correctly and did a better job of explaining.

Thanks. peace, Kim

[Oregone]

14. Personally, I think its about right & benefits to start out with.

And if it takes semantics to win the middle and ensure everyone has the same equal rights, thats a step in the right direction for equality. As of now, this resembles a dog tirelessly chasing its own tail. Im not sure I would call that progress.

[mondo joe]

20. Progress: Look at the advances in suppotr of same sex marriage over the

last few years. We're at about half the people now. That's progress.

There is no groundswell of suppotr for taking the word marriage away from everyone. But if you think it's a good idea, I applaud your effotrs to do something about it.

[tanyev]

9. Yeah, that seems logical to me.

A secular government issues a certificate of civil union which is identical for all couples that apply. Anyone who wants to follow it up with a religious ceremony of their choice, knock yourselves out.

[mondo joe]

15. What actions are YOU taking to make this happen?

[shireen]

24. a good place to start is right here,

discussing this on DU. Listening to what others have to say, informing each other. That's what #3 is doing.

And if you're wondering what I'm trying to do, my current goal is to raise awareness and show my solidarity with the GLBT community. As more discussions take place and more ideas form, I'll take what I can handle and run off with it. I had a thread about wearing rainbow bracelets that didn't receive a whole lot of attention. So much for the groundswell of support I was trying to start ....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4467839

I never paid much attention to GLBT issues, kinda supported them and all, but never REALLY paid attention. Till I started reading threads on DU about the fallout from the passage of prop 8. Other sleepy straights are starting to awaken as well, and seeing this horrible violation of civil rights for GLBT'ers. And we're really pissed.

[AntiFascist]

31. Legally that would be nearly impossible....

The Federal government does not issue marriage certificates, so each state is left with the option of specifying how they are issued and what they are called.

Marriage is NOT "associated with religion" that's why the term civil marriage or civil ceremony is used. Marriage in California is considered a Fundamental Right, which further isolates it from any specific religion or ceremony.

Good luck trying to rewrite all the law books in all 50 states. Also, good luck trying to get the Federal government to ban the term "marriage" altogether. Where would that lead?

[Maven]

5. No, you're incorrect.

The disparity in rights is directly attributable to the fact that the civil, legal designation has a different name. That's the point of the OP. There is not, nor will there ever be, "federal" civil unions. Marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships etc. are conferred by the states.

Nor would straight couples across America agree to downgrade their civil marriages to civil unions to give GLBTs the same rights.

[Cerridwen]

10. Thank you, Harvey. I agree.

I swear I've had this debate for about 15 years? 12 years? Forever?

Words matter. Words used in the law matter legally. And civil rights should be unalienable and for all.

[mondo joe]

17. Have you noticed the people who say "just call it ALL civil unions" aren't actually

doing anything to make that happen?

[LostinVA]

18. Exactlty -- the ignorance (willful and honest) on DU on this subject is astounding!

[gollygee]

21. It would also cause huge backlash

What's been the talking point? "Gay people want to destroy marriage!" But then people say that in an attempt to create equality, they want to . . . get this . . . DESTROY MARRIAGE! Because that's exactly how this downsizing marriages to civil unions would read to most people. And guess who would get the blame for destroying marriage?

I wonder if people honestly don't see where this is going or if there are disruptors around.

[Oregone]

23. Well excuse me...

I was under the impression that civil rights issues were properly handled federally (such as the civil rights legislation passed for African Americans). Normally when it is determined that civil rights are at stake, I thought it wasn't left up to the states to decide to grant them.

[mondo joe]

26. Civil Rights remedies are often handled federally. But marriage is not

granted at the fed level, so they can't grant civil unions either.

What could happen is that the Supreme Coourt could say marriage has to include same sex couples.

[Maven]

32. Well, that's partly true in this case

For example, DOMA, which is federal law, has hindered the expansion of marriage rights by nullifying Full Faith & Credit when it comes to marriage rights. That is, without DOMA, a married same-sex couple in CT could sue to have their marriage recognized in, say, AZ, and have the outcome determined in federal court (i.e., the SCOTUS) as a Constitutional FF&C issue.

[peace13]

43. Does The Constitution forbid the National Civil Union Act

Or do those that insist that it could never happen forbid this? Really the magic of the word marriage is something that must be addressed. If gay couples want to move this issue ahead they will move away from trying to convince folks that churches have to marry them. IMO marriage has no place in the law as it stands. Get god out of our government and we will all be better off.

[mondo joe]

45. "God" isn't in civil marriage. But we gays sure are lucky to have you telling us what

to do.

[peace13]

53. Thank you Joe.

I am sorry for your pain. Please stop for one minute and know that everyone is not against you and that others do work in your name whether you like it or not. I hear you over and over talking about others not doing the work. How do you know? How can you know?

[mondo joe]

59. I never thought everyone was against me. I still don't.

So I'm asking you: what is the work you are personally doing to make your idea happen?

[gollygee]

47. Who ever suggested that churches should be forced to marry anybody?

I haven't seen that suggestion anywhere.

[peace13]

56. I did misspeak and I apologize.

My question is why wouldn't civil union be good enough if everyone was required to have a civil union? This would avoid the right wing wackos feeling as though their church and values were being threatened. I personally don't care about the word marriage. If an equal civil union option would have been offered I would have been happy to promise to support my husband through thick and thin without having to invoke the eye of god. Sorry for the confusion. Peace, kim

[Maven]

57. IF everyone had civil unions

THEN civil unions for GLBTs would be equal.

By definition.

And then, the bigots would focus their campaign on denying us civil unions. They already do want to deny us civil unions, or any form of recognition.

Of course, as I've said elsewhere on this thread, "civil unions for all" is a canard meant to deflect from the real issue--equality--by imposing a dishonest RW frame (i.e., that civil marriage and religious marriage are the same).

"If an equal civil union option would have been offered I would have been happy..."

Of course, you're perfectly capable of doing this in states that offer civil unions. You're also able to legally marry in those states, which offers many more benefits (not to mention social recognition and the security in knowing that corporations and institutions will recognize you as married), while we are not.

[peace13]

60. But the point is that gays would be included in the initial creation of the legislation.

And I understand that you are left out of rights and benefits, that is why I suggest that we approach this issue that has been beaten about for how many years and try to attack it in a way that will accomplish what you want and what is right for all. Peace, Kim

[Maven]

61. The simplest way to attack the issue that will accomplish equality

is to open up the existing institution of civil marriage to all.

[peace13]

65. One would think, but it doesn't prove to be.

Peace, KIm

[gollygee]

66. Really? You have proof that your way would be easier?

Where is that proof?

[peace13]

71. How many years?

How many years have people been beating themselves up over this? I have no idea, but it is as long as I can remember. To be honest with you I don't give a crap about the word marriage and I would be opposed to getting hit over the head with a rock to stand up for it. But equal rights, equal benefits, equal protection under the law, I could stand on a corner for that. It might just be me and I don't know *hit about any of this. On the other hand, I am a pretty good observer of life and I believe in free thinking. I see a lot of anger just in this one post and I feel the whack of the board for speaking out. Why do I bother, why do I care. I don't know but the fact is that I do, but when I see a response such as yours I begin to wonder. peace, Kim

[mondo joe]

90. I observe that you have yet to say what work you will be doing to accomplish

your idea.

[gollygee]

58. There are several reasons that won't work

1. You are not going to convince the millions of Americans who are married, but not in churches, to downgrade their marriages to "civil unions".

2. Those Americans would take any attempt to downgrade their marriages as an attack upon marriage. "See? The gays really did want to destroy marriage!" Things would only get worse.

3. The people opposing same-sex marriage don't want to allow gay people to play in their reindeer games. They aren't really concerned about the word anyway. In fact, some states have specifically outlawed civil unions, or anything giving rights in any way resembling marriage, to gay couples regardless of what they're called. They don't care about the word "marriage" - that's a red herring they've thrown out to stall the inevitable.

4. And that's my last point - this really is inevitable now. Four years ago in Michigan, a ballot proposal similar to Prop. 8 passed with a HUGE percentage of the vote. This time it BARELY passed. They're both blue states. Public opinion is changing and pretty fast, same-sex marriage is inevitable at this point, and it doesn't make sense to change plans when so much progress has been made.

[peace13]

63. You are remiss in thinking that it would be a downgrade for anyone.

Ya know people didn't think that Obama would make it but he did and I believe that with some calm structure on a national level this issue could be resolved. I can guarantee that bashing about for the word marriage on a document is not worth the effort. Go for the rights and benefits that you are due. Join everyone in a civil union that is EQUAl to and synonymous with marriage and you will have accomplished the goal. There are many who would help with this. peace,Kim

[gollygee]

64. I am not remiss in that people would consider it a downgrade

People are not going to accept that. You take away the word "marriage" from marriages and people will freak out. And they will blame gay people for "destroying marriage" and the backlash will set that effort further back than it is now.

[peace13]

75. Civil Union would be the license from the government.

Marriage would be the celebration whether it be religious, ethnic, family, friends, or who knows. You sell people short. Most folks go to the government office and pay the money for the license. I doubt that people care as much as you think about what it is called. It would be worth a survey though. As far as destroying marriage goes well can't you see that you will continue to get that backlash as long as you call it 'marriage'? You say it in your own words. If the front door's locked try the window it might be open. peace, Kim

[gollygee]

77. You doubt people care what it's called?

Then why do you think a change should be made?

[peace13]

82. Because I think all partnerships should be equal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Marriage is a toxic word. It insights the right wing wackos and and heaven knows, they have been on overdrive lately.
2. Marriage connotes god and religion to many people. Whether it involves church or not the religious cling to it as their own.
3. I feel that by removing the word marriage while maintaining the rights and benefits we could get unions for all, across this country and that would be the object of this exercise.

Peace, Kim

[gollygee]

83. Everything I said in post #58 still applies

There is no way people opposed to same-sex marriage are going to give any rights to any gay couples that in any way resemble marriage. Those people are lost. The right-wing wackos will not be appeased by any change in the word used. In fact, in some states they've specifically made "civil unions" for gay couples illegal.

Moderates won't want the word "marriage" taken away from their civil ceremonies, and there will be backlash against gay people if that is tried.

The same-sex marriage battle of Proposal 8 was almost won. This is really close.

[ieoeja]

80. It is a "marriage license" and a "marriage contract". You can have a religious "wedding".

Nobody is demanding the government force churches to perform a religious wedding for anyone. We are just demanding that the legal portion, marriage, be extended to all adults.

There are thousands of years of legal precedence for the legal concept of a marriage contract. Any new type of contract would allow judges to interpret it independant of legal precedence.

In fact, a judge would be justified in ruling against the rights of anyone in a civil union where legal precedence holds that right has traditionally been reserved for married couples only.

[peace13]

84. To your last point.

Not if all unions were civil. Not the old civil but a national civil union that would be the basis for all partnerships. All of this without using the word 'marriage' to avoid opening up the bee hive that is the religious right.

To your first point, I KNOW that. Is it the word marriage you are after or the rights and benefits? You tell me.

'Any new type of contract would allow judges to interpret it independent of legal precedence.' Why would we not say that all unions created under the National Civil Union are synonymous with the word Marriage in terms of the law?

[ieoeja]

86. Legal precedence is an extremely powerful concept in US jurisprudence.

I'm fairly certain about 99% of the judges would rule "independant of legal precedence" invalid.

If all unions were civil then *all* could lose rights we currently have with marriage. As my last point said, you would be opening up *everything* to judicial interpretation.

[donco6]

97. Who's saying we want to force churches to marry us?

I used to work in a conservative Bible church. We turned away MANY straight couples who came to us to be married. They have no recourse, nor should they. What a church decides to do in the administration of its ceremonies and sacraments cannot be infringed by the state - even to the point of trying to ban peyote use (legal in church ceremonies here in CO).

Nothing would change with gay marriage. No churches would be forced to marry anyone.

On edit, Peace13 clarified his/her comment - but I think this was worth noting anyway.

[Cerridwen]

7. I don't think it's ever moot to add information to a discussion.

I've noticed people here don't get the legal distinctions between civil unions as they exist and marriage as it exists. We keep getting wrapped up in religion. I was trying to unwrap the information to look at the legal angle.

[Oregone]

19. But...

It shouldn't be presented as information to show that a Federal Civil Rights Civil Union legislation would be a step in the wrong direction, because that would be incomparable with the current flavor of civil unions.

[Cerridwen]

22. It wasn't. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

I put the OP here to show the difference between civil unions and marriage as they exist. Too many people don't see the difference because they're not aware of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the legal definition of "marriage."

[Oregone]

25. Got it. Thanks

[Cerridwen]

Yes I think this is important and yes I'm going to kick it myself. n/t

[shireen]

11. gay family law lawyers in Maryland?

Is there a way to get recommendations? I want to make sure my friend and his partner are totally covered for all legal issues that could potentially create conflict.

[Cerridwen]

12. Maybe someone in the Maryland forum or in the GLBT forum

would have information for you?

Or, maybe someone will see your question here and respond.

:D

[shireen]

27. Is it possible to have a CIVIL discussion about this?

Here's a sampling of snide remarks from this thread:

What actions are YOU taking to make this happen?

Have you noticed the people who say "just call it ALL civil unions" aren't actually doing anything to make that happen?

Exactlty -- the ignorance (willful and honest) on DU on this subject is astounding!

I wonder if people honestly don't see where this is going or if there are disruptors around.


No, we're not disruptors. We're here to learn. We're here to understand. We're here to have a conversation. DU membership has grown significantly over the past few years, even months. Some people are coming to this discussion with misconceptions and questions. We want to support GLBTs, and we're trying to figure out the most effective way to do it within our resources. Snide comments only serve to alienate well-meaning people who are here to learn and understand. So, who are the real disruptors?

[Cerridwen]

30. It's a heated issue. A whole lotta people woke up November 5th

without the same rights they went to bed with on November 4th - or the threat of losing those rights, at least. I think there's still a court case (cases?) waiting to happen.

And we do get disruptors here. And some people here on DU won't listen to something that isn't "hurting" them specifically and are rather dismissive of those who are hurting. It's not always easy to tell the difference.

I think I'm pretty obvious when I'm being a snarky, pain in the ass. But not everyone is as noticeably, obnoxious as I can be. :D

[Maven]

33. The most effective, and simplest, way to support GLBTs on this issue

is to support extending the existing institution of civil marriage, on which countless laws are based and benefits granted, to same-sex couples.

Also, believe us. Trust us. Trust us when we tell you that based on our own experiences fighting for our own cause, there is no "third way," no separate-but-equal roundabout solution to achieving real equality.

[shireen]

70. Trust.

What have you done to earn my trust? I'm not saying that with hostility. It's a fact; I really don't know you. I don't know the "us" that you refer to. I cannot trust and follow anyone blindly.

This is a very complex two-way street with the potential to become quite chaotic. Perhaps the GLBT community needs to take a page out of the Obama campaign strategy. Establish a strong leadership presence, or several strong leadership hubs to work in parallel with each other. Clearly outline what you want, first in simple terms. Then explain your reasoning, in all its legal, social and religious complexity, on a website(s). Recruit supporters at the grassroots level.

Please use DU to help build your base of support. There are a lot of people here who really care about our GLBT brothers and sisters, and we want you to have all the full rights of citizenship.

[Cerridwen]

34. I'll add a little bit to what Harvey advised.

As you're learning the issues, share what you've learned with friends and family and co-workers; just in case you hadn't already planned that.

Some of the less than civil discourse you're seeing on DU will give you an idea of what kind of responses you might receive. They can also give you some ideas for what to respond with; though perhaps in a different tone. :D

[mondo joe]

35. A note of explanation:

As someone who has been actively involved in marriage equality for a long time, and as someone with a very real stake in the matter, I have a few observations that are borne out over time.

One is that people who have only a casual or abstract relationship with the issue frequently come forth with some pretty consistent suggestions. Those suggestions, in the abstract, are perfectly legitimate ideas. But in practical application, they tend be uninformed. They are sometimes counterproductive. And they are, uniformly, ideas presented for other than the person suggesting them to do.

It feels like we're doing the heavy lifting, and someone with no investment and no real expertise is throwing ideas at us about how we should do the work.

So I may sound a bit touchy in response sometimes. I have little patience for "idea people" who have ideas about how others should work, but aren't willing to take on any actual work themselves.

[shireen]

55. ok, i get it now.

But please also consider where we're coming from. We've not had your life experiences, we do not know your pain. Now that you've told me where you're coming from, I appreciate your perspective. You will continue to meet new people in DU. Some will be disruptors but most of them will be well-meaning, perhaps misinformed, and some will be working to rid themselves of prejudices ingrained since childhood by a toxic homophobic society. Please don't assume they're hostile or willfully ignorant.

I will never really understand what it is like to be gay. Even among gays, life experiences are so different across country and culture. A gay man in San Francisco will never fully understand the life of a gay man living in the Bible Belt. But we can talk to each other, try hard to see life through each others eyes, and support each other. We're bound together by empathy and a sense of justice. The strength of those bonds will depend very much on how we communicate and appreciate each other.

[mondo joe]

62. It's not so much about life experience, as about doing the work.

And it's definitely not about "pain".

What I'm trying to convey to you is that there are people doing the heavy lifting. It might be a good idea to ask those with the expertise how they can help, rather than trying to be the "idea man".

[shireen]

78. it's a part of the learning process.

We hear simplistic sound bites of complex issues on tv or newspapers. We never see the detailed depths of the issue. So, curious little brains that we are, we wonder, why not do this? Or do that? Why isn't this/that possible? Perhaps you misunderstood the tone of the comments; no one, that I could discern, was telling you how to deal with it. They were merely thinking aloud about ways to resolve the problem, not realizing its complexity. They were trying to engage in conversation. Several people responded with facts, but some of those comments felt contemptuous.

There are a gazillion threads on DU each day. You are going to keep meeting more people who don't understand the difference between civil union and marriage, why it would be so difficult to redefine the legal meaning of civil union, and why it would even be necessary since there's already a perfectly good set laws to ensure the legal rights of couples. Unfortunately, those laws come in the form of an emotionally-charged word called "marriage."

[Zuiderelle]

36. There've been a lot of people antagonizing us. I'm glad you though are here to learn.

Here's some informative reading if you want to learn about what these benefits are that we are denied:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4480012

[shireen]

39. thank you for the link.

There are so many threads on DU that it's so easy to miss the really important ones.

[Pithlet]

42. It's difficult.

I know that oftentimes it does start out civil, but it can be hard when you're up against someone who just simply either can't or doesn't want to get it. Often I lose it when the other person starts to get snippy or snarky with me. I'll attempt to be civil, and then someone will throw an accusation at me, like "You're trying to dictate someone's religious beliefs!" It's hard to stay civil after that, if you don't simply walk away from the discussion altogether.

[peace13]

76. Thank you for this.

It was well put. Peace, Kim

[ieoeja]

81. A wedding can be religious. A marriage is a legal contract.

You get a license from the state. You sign a state marriage contract. That contract is filed with the state.

Notice the complete absence of anything related to religion in this process? You *can* hold a wedding ceremony at which the marriage is solemnized. You can also pray before a football game to solemnize it. But that doesn't make a football game a religious institution. Nor does it make prayer required to play a football game.

Marriage is no more a religious institute than is football. And in Texas, less.

[LeftHander]

28. Wisconsin denies both. What is the point of talking about civil unions?

It will take a SCOTUS ruling to change that.

[Cerridwen]

29. Well, I don't know about others but my reason for posting the OP

was to get information in front of people who appeared to not know.

[yardwork]

37. Florida just outlawed civil unions for gay people by a 63% vote.

In many states - mine included - civil unions are not an option.

[Cerridwen]

38. Yep. The other reason we need gay *marriage* and we need it

from the federal level. Some things just can't realistically be done on a state-by-state basis.

[yardwork]

41. Thank you for starting this thread. There is a lot of misunderstanding.

I hope that folks reading this thread come away with some new understanding and information:

1. Civil unions aren't the same thing as marriages. Civil unions don't confer the same legal rights as marriages.

2. Even if you got married by a justice of the peace or a judge or the captain of a ship, you are married. Your marriage certificate says marriage on it. Marriage is a legal term.

3. If you are a heterosexual couple, you can get married in a church if you want to, or have a religious leader sanctify your marriage, but that doesn't mean anything legally in the United States. The religious ceremony has no legal meaning unless you have that marriage certificate, which is a purely legal document issued by the state in which you get married. After you get the marriage certificate at your county courthouse, you are free to have a religious ceremony or not. The religious ceremony is purely voluntary and has nothing whatsoever to do with the legality of your marriage in the eyes of the government.

4. If you are a gay or lesbian couple in the United States, you can get "unioned" or "blessed" or even "married" in plenty of religious institutions, but you can't get legally married except in a couple of states. It's the legally married part that gay people are being denied that's the problem. We don't care what your religious institution does or doesn't do.

5. Nobody is going to force your church or religion to sanctify anyone's marriage.

6. Most states that outlaw gay marriage in the U.S. also outlaw civil unions, so stop telling gay people that they can "just go get civilly unioned." In most places we can't, and it's not the same thing anyway.

[peace13]

46. Thank you for your explanation.

I was surprised to see that today civil union is not synonymies with marriage. I believe that if we all worked toward a civil union that conveyed the rights that marriage does now, that this could be doable. The American people are waking up and rising to their feet. We have to make this issue non toxic to the far religious right. If it is not about religion then that de-powers the issue. So, I see two problems here. 1. Creating a national civil union for ALL unions, that conveys the same legal rights as current marriage 2. Getting gay people to understand that it is not about the word 'marriage' but about the ability to have equal rights where partnering is concerned. "Marriage' can happen in a church or club after the couple has legally entered into a civil union. This would be a ceremony void of government license. Peace, Kim

[yardwork]

50. Civil unions for gay people are now illegal in many states.

If civil unions for gay people were acceptable to the religious right, then why have they purposefully outlawed them in numerous states?

Changing everyone's marriage to a civil union is going to be a lot more difficult than simply expanding marital rights to include gay couples.

[Cerridwen]

49. You're welcome.

Damn. I really cannot believe there are still those who don't know this.

Thank you so much for adding your post as well. The more information the better. I hope.

[ArrowMan]

44. Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for posting this.

[Cerridwen]

85. See PelosiFan's thread also

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4480012

[bullwinkle428]

48. So, to be perfectly honest..."separate, and not even close to equal"!

Excellent post!

[Cerridwen]

51. That would be correct. "not even close to equal."

Thank you.

:hi:

[yardwork]

52. "Not even close to equal" and "illegal in most states anyway."

[Cerridwen]

67. :( - "illegal in most states"

Why is this even being debated on this board? Don't answer. It's rhetorical.

[yardwork]

69. It's a red herring.

[Cerridwen]

73. Yep. Yet another means of division and diversion.

[jonnyblitz]

54. glad to give this recommend #5.nt

[Cerridwen]

68. Thank you, jonnyblitz. n/t

[Starry Messenger]

72. Excellent post.

I think links like this are one of the best reasons for DU. Rec it up kids.

[Cerridwen]

74. Thank, MPK. Much appreciated.

Let's get the information out there.

[Starry Messenger]

I still remember the first time I ever saw this info.

Not the who or when, but I'm sure I saw it on DU a few years ago and it was like being hit with the proverbial brick wrapped in lemon. Marriage equality=human rights for all. "Civil Union"=over a thousand hassles no American should have to go through to be with the one they love.

[Cerridwen]

96. Yeah. It's an amazing collection.

I was sure it would have the same effect on others here as it had on you. Well, for the most part I think it has provided some much needed perspective.

Still not enough, I'm afraid, but every little bit helps.

[Greyhound]

79. Does anything ever change? Must we fight the same battles over and over, forever?

:wtf:is wrong with people that cannot see that separate, no matter how it is dressed up, is never equal, period.
:kick: & R

[peace13]

87. I am sorry that you feel that way.

From someone who rarely visits threads on gay issues...oh wait...why you might ask? Because I am made to feel too stupid to understand the issues. Well I have spoken today as an American who would like to see this issue resolved. I have given my ideas and read the responses. My take is that there is only one way this can be resolved in the eyes of the gay community. If one is not gay then their comments and suggestions are not welcome and as you put it,if we are too stupid to understand then we should step away from the keyboard.Just my take. I hope that we can resolve issue soon. Peoples lives are in the balance.

[FreeState]

88. Im sorry you have not been involved with the conversation until now

However when your not involved with an issue its always a good thing to educate yourself before you start talking about it.

For example, if your talking about the Civil Rights Movement in America regarding Black Americans it would be considered highly offensive to tell Blacks that while they had to drink out of different water fountain its okay because they are still getting water. Thats what this thread just did to GLBT Americans - its a slap in the face to a lot of GLBT persons to tell them they must get their "water" from a different fountain - its Un American and divisive.

[peace13]

Until you have read what I have posted here .

Save your breath. And thank you for proving my point. Once again, it's back to the closet with me!!!

[FreeState]

92. I did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4479597&mesg_id=4480709

That post there is highly offensive to me - telling gay people to settle for something less than what is afforded the majority is HIGHLY offensive.

So offensive your nor on my ignore list.

[peace13]

93. Good on you because you didn't understand a thing that I said. n/t

[Cerridwen]

94. I *have* read what you have posted here.

You seem amazingly married to the idea that we just need to re-vamp the entire legal system and government and business to remove the legal word marriage.

You claim to be new to this debate yet you came in and told others what they should want and how they could fix their problems. All the while refusing to listen...to listen to what they were saying to you about what it is they want and why they want it.

You say you "don't give a crap about the word marriage." It's nice you have that option. Not everyone does.

You're not being picked on because you're "straight." You're being debated on issues about which others know more and have worked for longer and whose very lives are at stake; who don't have the option to be dismissive or sanguine about rights which they don't have or have recently lost. Yet, I see you talking over and down to them throughout your posts in this thread.

When building coalition and community, it usually works best to listen and learn rather than pontificate and deny the experiences and knowledge of others who've been around a while.

Now you can add this mean old poster to your list of people who've victimized you because you're "straight."

But, thanks for keeping my thread kicked.

[Cerridwen]

89. Youch! FreeState. Is that what you took from my OP?

Or are you talking about responses in the thread?

[FreeState]

91. No it was a general statement under one response that I took offense too

the persons now on ignore before I pull what hair I have left out.

[Cerridwen]

95. Yeah, I see that now.

And here I thought I started a thread to provide information. Silly me. What WAS I thinking?

*sigh*

[FreeState]

100. I know.. thanks for the thread...

I wish threads like this were not needed - however its evident we need to work more on educating the general public. It sucks - but thats were we are at apparently.

[Cerridwen]

101. I agree and I agree.

That we didn't need threads like this and that it sucks that we still do need threads like this.

[Greyhound]

99. I'm not gay, but I am a student of history and have seen the results of this type of

behavior many times in the past. That is the point, it does not matter whether you are talking about the rights of GLBT or blacks or women or young or old people, equality is. It is not the government's right to determine which of your rights you may have or not, they are your rights, just as this right belongs to Gays as well as everybody else.

The misconception is that the individual is rightfully subservient to the state. So, which rights and which people and which timetable are all irrelevant, the rights are inherent, inalienable in the Declaration of Independence, and not subject to granting or taking by the government or the mob.

As Thomas Paine said, "When the people fear the government you have tyranny, when the government fears the people you have freedom".

[mondo joe]

104. You would be well served to understand the issues by asking those with more expertise,

rather than treating the people DOING the work like idiot children who know less about it than you do.

It may comfort you to think you get the response you do because you're not gay. But that's far from the truth. There are plenty of hetero people who understand the issues, the fight, and how to participate.

[gollygee]

107. I'm not gay

I hope you don't assume everyone who disagrees with you is gay.

[Cerridwen]

98. And the first reply to your post is all the answer you needed.

Yep, we're gonna have to define and defend marriage rights for LGBT until and probably beyond the time it becomes federally enforced.

And people are still going to post to tell others how they should feel and what they should want.

[Starry Messenger]

102. kick. n/t

[Cerridwen]

103. MPK, I think I love you. Thank you. This was a nice thing you did.

:hug:

[Starry Messenger]

105. Well, I shamelessly kick my own threads.

Which are often a bit silly. I figure a nice kick for something important is both free and useful! And here's another:



kick

[Cerridwen]

106. LOL I love the boot!

I usually just use the kick smiley. Yours is far more impressive.

LOL